Let me tell you something. If you advertise a product using a commercial that emulates a news program, complete with a make-up swathed newswoman singing your product's praises and the words breaking news flashing across the screen, you're hurting your own credibility. I understand that it might help your advertisement cut through the clutter of others, but it is also deceptive. And when you are trying to get people to use your product or service, the last thing you want is for them to feel tricked by your advertising. Because if they feel tricked by your advertising, they won't take anything said in your commercial seriously. Thus rendering the advertisement a waste of valuable money. I respect that people are trying to be creative and find new ways to get TV viewer's attention, but deception doesn't help your cause.
I've seen a few financial services commercials, and a cablevision commercial using these techniques. I wouldn't trust the latter anyway, but making a faux-news program that looks more like a sleazy infomercial isn't the way to go.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Who Loses? (HULUses)
It was announced yesterday that The Daily Show and Colbert Report, along with less popular Comedy Central offerings will no longer be available on Hulu. My first reaction was...that's dumb, offering streaming video of your episodes increases awareness of the product and viewership. Granted most revenue is drawn from television advertisements, which are not at all helped by online watchers, but still...a viewer is a viewer regardless of the medium, and companies are beginning to draw revenue from online episodes too.
But then I found out that they will still offer full episodes on TheDailyShow.com and TheColbertReport.com, which makes much more sense for them because then the people watching online see their advertisements without a middle man taking a piece of the pie.
The only thing Hulu has going in its favor is the convenience of it all...which as we know, American's love. But convenience doesn't matter to the companies who pay for the development and production of these shows. They want numbers...they want results. So Hulu needs to prove that having videos on their sight will provide more viewers, more advertising dollars, and more promotion for upcoming episodes, otherwise Comedy Central won't be the last to pull their programming away from the popular media streaming website.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
But then I found out that they will still offer full episodes on TheDailyShow.com and TheColbertReport.com, which makes much more sense for them because then the people watching online see their advertisements without a middle man taking a piece of the pie.
The only thing Hulu has going in its favor is the convenience of it all...which as we know, American's love. But convenience doesn't matter to the companies who pay for the development and production of these shows. They want numbers...they want results. So Hulu needs to prove that having videos on their sight will provide more viewers, more advertising dollars, and more promotion for upcoming episodes, otherwise Comedy Central won't be the last to pull their programming away from the popular media streaming website.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Importance of Innovation

In 2009, Blockbuster reported a loss of $558.2 million, in 2008, $374.1 million, and in 2007, $85.1 million. To put that into perspective...that's over a billion dollars lost in the past 3 years. In response to their gaping financial wounds, Blockbuster plans to close up to 545 of their retail locations and cut back significantly on advertising.
I never like to be the one to say I told you so, but this is what happens when people are late on the shifting trends in human behavior. In another retail business, Barnes & Noble, faces falling profits because of digital readers and online booksellers, forcing them to create their own contraption, much later than Amazon released its Kindle, and with much less hype than Apple will release its iPad.
With the internet and the instant gratification of knowledge being at ones fingertips, people are accustomed to being able to do everything from their home. And if they can get things instantly, like an on-demand video or an ebook downloaded directly to their digital reader, they're going to spend their money in that manner. They're not going to scour through a retail outlet for a product that might not even be available.
But what happens when a company is late to a party? They're not the belle of the ball. When people think of mail-service video renting they think of Netflix. They don't think of the blue and yellow of Blockbuster, and won't if the chain plans to cut back advertising. When most people order books online, they think of Amazon, not Barnes & Noble. They don't think of the Nook, they think of the Kindle and the iPad.
Blockbuster plans to place "Express Kiosks," like Red Box to compete with that source of video rental, but once again they're late. Red Box has its vending machines outside the most popular convenience store chain, 7-11, which are located everywhere and the perfect place for someone looking for an impulse $1 movie rental. So once again they're late.
There was a time when Blockbuster could have capitalized on its strong brand name to create a monopoly on these new technologies and services. But for some reason I feel like there was someone in the board room saying, "Oh, people won't go for that. Those businesses will never last." And I'm sure that same executive is asking himself every night, "How did we end up in such a dire situation?"
The answer is change. You must always be open to it, and when new technologies and methods are available...give them a serious thought. Because if it's convenient...it's going last.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Monday, March 1, 2010
The NFL Daft
Apparently the NFL isn't done trying to turn the draft into some spectacle second only to the Super Bowl. Not only have they turned it into a primetime affair, but now they're trying to make the second day of the draft an exciting event as well by inviting popular college prospects who aren't expected to go in the first round to sit around for the second day of the draft waiting to be picked.
I get the whole angle that this one pick can change your team's fortune--even though that one pick costs a fortune and could tie up a sizable portion of your salary cap preventing you from fielding a competitive team. And the whole guessing game aspect of who's going to pick who is fun for fans. But in the end, the event consists of fifteen minutes of talking and then a man coming to a podium and saying a name. Not too exciting is it.
So now they're planning on trying to bank on the starpower of elite college players, whose game's might not translate well into the pro's (see Tebow, Tim), to try and turn the rest of the draft into a television event worth watching. But that's not what the draft is about. The draft is about fans hoping their team gets better, not to see where certain college players go. Because if they're not going to have an impact, the fans who actually watch this event, won't care.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
I get the whole angle that this one pick can change your team's fortune--even though that one pick costs a fortune and could tie up a sizable portion of your salary cap preventing you from fielding a competitive team. And the whole guessing game aspect of who's going to pick who is fun for fans. But in the end, the event consists of fifteen minutes of talking and then a man coming to a podium and saying a name. Not too exciting is it.
So now they're planning on trying to bank on the starpower of elite college players, whose game's might not translate well into the pro's (see Tebow, Tim), to try and turn the rest of the draft into a television event worth watching. But that's not what the draft is about. The draft is about fans hoping their team gets better, not to see where certain college players go. Because if they're not going to have an impact, the fans who actually watch this event, won't care.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Friday, February 26, 2010
When Comedy Becomes Tragedy
I watch a lot of TV. Well...actually no I don't. At least not when compared to a majority of people, but I do watch my fair share, which is more than I'd like. Naturally, I tend to turn to comedy when it's on. Not sitcoms, because they're all pathetic, tired, and I don't need a laugh track telling me something's funny when it clearly isn't. To me causing laughter is the greatest achievement...this means that an ill-fated, miserably-failing attempt to draw my laughter the greatest offense.
That mindset breeds a great deal of dislike for many mainstream comedians and shows, like say the Sarah Silverman Show for instance. One would think that taking a popular comedian and giving them a half-hour every week would have great effects, no? But it is often not the case. Then again, they often give shows to unfunny comedians simply because they have large fanbases because they put on accents and pander to specific demographics (see Lopez, George or Mencia, Carlos). I think the problem is...stand up comedy doesn't always translate into a good television show.
You can combat that by saying, "Steve...Seinfeld was the best show of all time, and he was a stand-up comedian."
And I can easily counter, "Yes, but he also had Larry David who has proved with Curb Your Enthusiasm he is a phenomenal writer."
The problem is that networks focus too much on the name. They look for a popular comedian to draw in audiences, but neglect the writing. The best comedy shows on Television--South Park, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Office--all have one thing in common...great writing. With the exception of the Office, none had a huge name involved, and even with the Office...other than Steve Carell the cast was a bunch of unknowns. A majority of people didn't know who Larry David was. Danny Devito didn't join Sunny until it's second season, and the writing was already there.
I understand the need for a name from a marketing standpoint...but you also need the writing from a quality standpoint...that's how you make an enjoyable show and build up a cult following who will watch religiously every week and buy every DVD and holiday special. But networks will never learn, other than FX...they know what they're doing.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
That mindset breeds a great deal of dislike for many mainstream comedians and shows, like say the Sarah Silverman Show for instance. One would think that taking a popular comedian and giving them a half-hour every week would have great effects, no? But it is often not the case. Then again, they often give shows to unfunny comedians simply because they have large fanbases because they put on accents and pander to specific demographics (see Lopez, George or Mencia, Carlos). I think the problem is...stand up comedy doesn't always translate into a good television show.
You can combat that by saying, "Steve...Seinfeld was the best show of all time, and he was a stand-up comedian."
And I can easily counter, "Yes, but he also had Larry David who has proved with Curb Your Enthusiasm he is a phenomenal writer."
The problem is that networks focus too much on the name. They look for a popular comedian to draw in audiences, but neglect the writing. The best comedy shows on Television--South Park, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Office--all have one thing in common...great writing. With the exception of the Office, none had a huge name involved, and even with the Office...other than Steve Carell the cast was a bunch of unknowns. A majority of people didn't know who Larry David was. Danny Devito didn't join Sunny until it's second season, and the writing was already there.
I understand the need for a name from a marketing standpoint...but you also need the writing from a quality standpoint...that's how you make an enjoyable show and build up a cult following who will watch religiously every week and buy every DVD and holiday special. But networks will never learn, other than FX...they know what they're doing.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Grow Up, America!!!

I was reading something today about Nipplegate (the incident where Justin Timberlake pulled off Janet Jackson's top or something), and it reminded me how sickeningly unclever it is when people put "-gate" at the end of whatever new conspiracy arises, and consider themselves a reincarnation of George Carlin. It's not creative...it's not funny...it's stupid and cringe-worthy.
The next thing I thought, "Really? Still this..."
Don't courts in America have more important things to worry about? Like the fact that the whole "all men are created equal" part of our Declaration of Independence is undermined by the fact that homosexuals don't have the same rights as everyone else because of an argument that is easily countered and dismissed by the theory of "separation of Church and State."
But no, the courts are too backed up because the FCC is still trying to reach into other people's pockets. Who knows, maybe someone from the FCC untied her top because they needed some new computers for the office so they could be more effective at taking away liberty with their out-dated standards of propriety. Let me tell you something, FCC: People curse, women have breasts, and sex sells. No matter how many people you steal money from, it won't change that.
Kids are exposed to enough explicit content in movies, magazines, and advertisements, so get off your moral high ground and stop claiming your purpose is about protecting kids or preserving decency. All you're doing is promoting more neglectful parenting from this nation by crucifying certain networks as scapegoats. If children are subject to coarse language or the human anatomy (both of which they become well acquainted with early), it is up to their parents to shield their eyes, or tell them it's wrong. Not only are you strangling freedom, but you're also making excuses for people to be poor parents. You taking money from a big corporation does nothing but get your top level workers a new Mercedes.
You serve absolutely no public good.
In fact, your publicizing of these outrageous and unconstitutional fines brings far more attention to these events than the occurrences themselves. In essence, you are contributing more to the corruption of the youth of America than these networks are by drawing awareness to these minor occurrences of innocent words and harmless sexuality. Perhaps you should fine yourselves, or better yet...close down your hypocritical and useless organization.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Human Signage

I was walking through Times Square today and saw someone wearing a sign around their shoulders advertising some product (it's hard to tell when every square inch is trying to sell you something) and thought to myself something smug and demeaning like, "Wow...you know it's bad when your job can be done just as effectively by a wooden or metal pole." But then I got to thinking and you know what, paying some shlub minimum wage to stand around in the rain during peak foot traffic hours makes a lot more sense than spending tens and hundreds of thousands a week to plaster your poster ten stories up where you have to crane your neck back so far its bound to snap just to see the advertisement.
So kudos to you, inventors of human signage...your message still gets lost in the clutter, and your credibility may be called into question the same as any establishment that has some guy handing out flyers that everyone in the world is going to crumble up and throw in the next garbage can...but at least you're wasting less money.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)